Geoffrey Brian Daley

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to increase the maximum lot coverage for an accessory building from 10% to 14.5% to construct a detached garage.

The municipality did not participate in the appeal.

Relying on the municipal staff report, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it was consistent with provincial policy, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable, and minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Brantford's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 16-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 9-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Brantford's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 318-unit residential development consisting of two new six-storey buildings and an existing building.

The central issue was the proposed reduction in parking requirements and the applicant's refusal to unbundle parking costs from rent.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate residential intensification, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and that parking costs cannot be regulated through a zoning by-law.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to determine priority between creditors after a judicial sale.

The plaintiff had made an offer to settle for $25,000, which was beaten at the hearing.

The court found the responding party's conduct to be particularly egregious, noting a combination of deceit, frivolous arguments, and repetitive proceedings designed to make collecting a simple debt as expensive as possible.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff full indemnity costs fixed at $150,000.

This motion determined priority between creditors following a judicial sale of a residential property.

Pollard Windows Inc., a construction lien claimant, sought priority over 1746878 Ontario Inc., an assignee of a mortgage.

The court found that the mortgage held by 1746878 Ontario Inc. was a fraudulent conveyance, part of a scheme by the controlling individual (Andrew Ferri) and related entities to defeat creditors.

The court rejected 1746878 Ontario Inc.'s claims of priority, finding that the alleged notice of sale was invalid, it failed to prove any actual advances under the mortgage, and the transaction bore numerous badges of fraud.

Pollard Windows Inc. was granted priority for its judgment and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to custom millwork installed in two homes renovated by the defendants.

The court found summary judgment appropriate for part of the claim, awarding the plaintiff damages for work actually delivered, less a set-off for conceded deficiencies.

The court dismissed the remainder of the claim for undelivered work due to the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence of its actual damages or costs incurred.

The issue of whether a trust was created under the Construction Lien Act from the sale proceeds of the homes was directed to a mini-trial due to insufficient evidence on the record.